Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-08-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 4, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAR 03-22.00: Variance (Marcella Thompson, pp 437) Page 2 VAR 03-23.00: Variance (Merlins, pp 521) Page 4 VAR 03-24.00: Variance (Callaway, pp 446) Page 9 VAR 03-25.00: Variance (Massey, pp 363) Page 13 VAR 03-26.00: Variance (Pierce, pp 405) Page 15 MEMBERS PRESENT James Kunzelmann Michael Green Joanne Olszewski Bob Kohler Bob Nickle Approved Approved Approved Tabled Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews Sheree Alt STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 2 VAR 03-22.00: Variance (Marcella Thompson, pp 437) was submitted b' Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Marcella Thompson for property located at 650 N. 54` Avenue. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 20.7 acres. The requirement is for 200' of lot width for R -A property. The request is for 177.85' lot width (a 22.15' variance). Green: Welcome to the August Board of Adjustment meeting. The first item on our agenda is approval of the minutes of the July meeting. Does anyone have any corrections or additions to those minutes? Hearing no corrections or additions we will consider those minutes approved. Under new business, the first item on our agenda is a Variance submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Marcella Thompson. This property is zoned R -A and the request is for a minimum lot variance. Dawn, can you give us the report? Warrick: Yes Sir. I am going to start by handing out some larger plats that will give you a better indication of what piece of property we are dealing with and what the conditions are. Those were provided by the applicant's representative. This subject property is located between Persimmon Street and Wedington Drive on the east side of 54th Street. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and is currently used for agricultural purposes as well as residential. Surrounding properties are primarily residential with a mix of single-family homes on large lots. Agricultural property and some duplexes. The applicant would like to build a second single- family home on the subject property without having to rezone the entire tract to an RSF-4, Residential Single-family zoning district. In order to do this the request is for a variance of the required 200' lot width for the new single-family home. The property currently contains a total of 377.85' of lot width and in order to build the second single-family home on the property 400' total would be necessary. There is an ordinance that provides for the construction of a second principle structure without having to actually divide the tract. However, that ordinance requires that the structure have the adequate lot width, lot area, and setbacks as if it were setting on its own separate tract so that in the future it can be accommodated by its own lot. In this situation it is a matter of the shape of the tract itself. This is a very large tract of property containing around 20 acres with the two pieces combined. It is commonly owned two adjacent tracts of land and it is situated in a manner that the narrowest point of the property is the part that adjoins 54th Street, which provides the lot width. With regard to special conditions, I mentioned that the applicant does own two large tracts of land totaling about 20 acres and uses that property for agricultural purposes. A lot line adjustment is being proposed so that two lots can be better configured for two single-family homes. One basically just containing the home and the other containing acreage plus the new structure. The R -A designation is appropriate because the property is used for residential and agricultural purposes and staff didn't feel the need to rezone the property just as a matter of providing the necessary frontage because in this situation if the property is ever developed further in the future then there will be a rezoning and most likely platting of lots and infrastructure development whereas, the structures can be provided with their own lots in the future upon redevelopment of the 20 acres. Basically, I think that covers Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 3 what staff's findings are. Staff is making a recommendation in favor of the requested 22.15' lot width variance with the following condition: At the time of development of more than one additional single-family home on the subject property infrastructure shall be installed to provide adequate lot with for all structures in accordance with current zoning regulations. That is all I have. Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us? Jorgensen: Sure, as Dawn mentioned, this is a request for 22.15' variance and it is true that the owner would like to have the second residence. She definitely did not want to rezone the property so that is the reason for the request. Green: Your name for the record. Jorgensen: Dave Jorgensen. Green: Are there any questions for the applicant or staff? Nickle: Two houses on 20 acres is not high density. Warrick: No, two houses even under the Residential Agricultural designation is very low density. Green: Are there any comments? 1 would entertain a motion. Nickle: I would move that we approve the applicant's request with staff's comments included. Kohler: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested along with staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion here or in the audience? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-22.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Thank you. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 4 VAR 03-23.00: Variance (Mertins, pp 521) was submitted by Bret Park Company, Inc. on behalf of William and Allyson Mertins for property located at 24 S. Hartman Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.344 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 17' rear setback (a 3' variance) to accommodate a roof overhang on a new addition. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 5'side setback (a 3' variance) to accommodate an existing roof overhang, discovered in the new survey. Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 03-23.00 submitted by Bret Park Company, Inc. on behalf of William and Allyson Mertins. This request is for setback variances. The request is for a 5' side setback, which would be a 3' variance. Dawn, could you give us the background? Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located in the University Heights neighborhood west of Razorback Road. It is just south of Center Street at 24 S. Hartman Avenue. There is currently one single-family home on the property which contains 1,839 sq.ft. Surrounding properties contain single-family homes. Some are located on combined lots. However, most adjoining lots are of a size which is compatible with the subject property. The existing structure is located towards the rear, which is the east of the property, due to the slope on the front portion of the lot. The applicant is proposing to add a 922 sq.ft. addition to the rear of the existing structure. The request is for a variance first to accommodate the existing roof overhang, which was found in a recent survey to encroach the required side setback on the north and then also to provide a variance for the rear, the addition to allow for a similar roof overhang on the proposed addition. In order to provide architectural detailing, which is consistent with the existing structure. The side setback on the north to accommodate the existing roof overhang is a 3' variance to provide for a 5' setback requirement. At the rear, which requires a 20' setback, a 17' setback is proposed, which is a 3' variance also. With regard to findings, staff found that the structure, which predates current zoning regulations and the sloping topography on the west side of the subject property are special conditions which are specific to the subject property and which affect the location of the addition that is being proposed. Also, I found that literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not permit the proposed addition on an existing non -conforming structure. The proposed addition is greater than 25% of the existing square footage. With regard to resulting actions, the requested side setback variance is not the result of actions from the applicant. The requested rear setback variance does result from actions of the applicant in that they are proposing an addition to the structure. The request is mitigated to some degree because of the sloping topography and the siting of the existing structure and the desire for the architectural detailing and size of the roof overhang to be consistent. Those are the primary findings that are pertinent to the case. Staff, with those findings and with one condition, is recommending in favor of the request. The condition is stated on page one of the report. Variances shall apply only to the existing structure and the addition proposed with the site plan submitted for this request. Future additions or alterations shall comply with setback requirements for the zoning district in which the property is located. I did make a caveat to that that Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 5 this does not preclude future variance requests if appropriate findings can be made by the Board of Adjustment. With that condition staff recommends in favor of the request and we do have signed conditions by the applicant. Green: Ok, very good. Would the applicant like to address us? Mertins: Yes, my name is William Mertins and unless you have any questions I think everything has already been stated. Green: Ok. Mertins: I will be happy to answer any specific questions that you have. Green: Ok. Kohler: I have a quick question. I understand the need for the north setback because of existing conditions. 922 sq.ft. is not a small addition and you don't include a floor plan, why couldn't the square footage on the rear or on the east side, be adjusted to stay within the setbacks and have the same roof overhang for architectural detailing? Warrick: There is a floor plan, it was not easily reducible but I will pass it around. Kohler: I was just curious if there was something unique in the floor plan that made it be this size rather than staying within the setback. Mertins: My name is William Mertins, I am the applicant for the record. The architects developed this plan back from an old survey of what we thought was our property line. The size of the addition was developed to suit our family's needs. We are having another child and we did need this additional space for bedroom, bathroom, closet and storage space. Also for a laundry room and additional closet. The plan for the house was developed back before we realized where the actual property line was. We could build, as a matter of right, we could build this addition as it is where it is located but it wouldn't have the side setback and it wouldn't allow us to do the roof overhang and also it would require that the roof be sided a different direction, which would then present a taller structure to the neighbors to the east instead of the sloping structure. I guess to answer your question the size of the addition is the size it needed to be and the request for the variance was based on the fact that we wanted to make this look nice and also not to have a large towering gable looming over our neighbor's property. I don't know if that addresses your questions at all. Nickle: It looks like just the overhang is going to be encroaching, is that correct? Mertins: That is correct. It is going to be encroaching by roughly 2 1/z' and it is just the roof overhang which on that side of the property, due to the slope of the land is probably going to be about 15' or 16', maybe possibly 17' above the ground. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 6 Kohler: If it went back further it would be a little higher? Mertins: If the variance request were denied it would be taller than that. The roof itself instead of sloping toward the eastern property line we are requesting the variance for what would actually be a pitched gable that would be an addition. Kohler: You could still do the same roof configuration if you just pulled it in right? Mertins: It would be the same roof configuration but it would be turned sideways so that the gabled end would be facing the rear property line and that would be an additional 6' or 7' taller facing the neighbor's property. One of the architects is here that might be able to answer your questions better than I can as well. Park: My name is Brett Park. The condition that William is talking about, the roof is a compound structure. It has both a hipped portion and a gabled portion and that is the existing architectural feature on the existing house. In order to accommodate the client's functional requirements within the volume of the house we need this amount of floor space in order to conform to the existing setback condition, we would need to rotate the ridge of the roof, instead of going a north and south direction which slopes down lower to the back property, to the east property we would need to rotate that ridge line in an orientation that runs east and west, which presents a taller gable profile to the east property and presents a greater, we felt like it was more sensitive to take this approach to their neighbor to the east because they will be looking up at a diminishing slope to the west away from their backyard rather than having a large gable looming out toward. I say looming lightly, it is not like I feel it is a towering thing that is going to fall over onto the neighbors. Kohler: It is still possible to do this roof configuration, you just change the slope a little bit and you move this wall in. Park: By moving the wall in we need the accommodation for the space of the house. Kohler: That is the answer. It is not the roof. That can stay in the general same. The answer is your square footage program would change and you don't want to do that. That is a valid reason. I just want to make it clear that there is nothing unique about the floor plan that would also enable it to fit within the setback requirements. Park: The only thing that is unique about the floor plan is that the client has presented to us furniture sizes and requirements that are specific to their needs and their use and we have tried to accommodate those things. I don't think we have done it extravagantly, I think it is a reasonable size. Nickle: I think architecturally it would look better to have the gables as they are on the existing, the same gable alignment as the existing house. I think that makes for a more attractive overall look on the property. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 7 Kohler: That would remain the same. It is still possible to keep that even though this wall moves in. Nickle: I don't have a problem with that because the actual wall and structure itself is within the normal setback. It is the overhangs of the roof that is causing the problem. Park: If it is of any consequence and consideration, we were working with an old survey that was incorrect to begin with so this is sort of a series of discoveries as the process has unfolded. Kohler: Do you know what just the dimension of the bedroom is? Park: I don't know the answer to that. Kohler: It is a determining factor that it is 3' less. Park: Oh yeah, definitely. It would be a matter of the bed and two night tables encroaching on the circulation into the closet space. Green: Park: One other point is that aren't both of these elements the same width so that with the same pitched roof you would end up with the same height as it is this way and if you reduce that one you are either going to have a lower ridge height there or you are going to have to change the pitch. It is a consideration for sure. It is part of it. That is not to say it is the sole determinant but it is certainly part of the consideration. Are there any other questions for me? Green: Does anyone else have questions? Nickle: Dawn, did I hear you say that it is within the square footage maximum building for this lot size? Which we don't have a lot survey in our packet but was that correct? Did hear you say that? Warrick: There is not a maximum on this. Were you talking about the 25% that I mentioned? Nickle: Yes. Warrick: It is larger than 25% which is why the variance would be necessary. For a non- conforming structure a single-family owner occupied non -conforming structure, an owner may add up to 25% without the necessity for a variance. They have the ability to make a 25% addition as long as that addition meets the setback requirement in the RSF-4, formally R-1 zoning district so that is why I make note of the 25%. This is greater than that. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 8 Nickle: So we don't have to include that in the motion? Warrick: No, unless you feel that this variance is not necessary and then we will deal with that. Green: Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to address us on this issue? Are there any questions or comments from the board? Nickle: Are there any comments from the neighbors? Warrick: I have not heard from anyone. MOTION: Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the variance as requested with staff recommendations. Olszewski: I will second it. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested with staff recommendations. Is there any further discussion from the board or audience? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-23.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Green: Thank you. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 9 VAR 03-24.00: Variance (Callaway, pp 446) was submitted by Dwight Callaway for property located at 835 Fritz Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.186 acres. The requirement is for 25' front setback. The request is for a 20' front setback (a 5' variance) to allow for an addition to the existing structure. Green: The next item on our agenda is VAR 03-24.00 submitted by Dwight Callaway for property on Fritz Drive. This is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, four units per acre. The request is for a 1'9" setback variance on the front and to accommodate an existing structure and for a 20' front setback, which is a 5' variance on the east to allow for this new addition. Would you like to give the report Dawn? Warrick: Sure. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Fritz Drive and Fritz Court. It is north of Prospect Street between Willow and Ruth Drive. It is south and east of Cleburn. The property contains a small 957 sq.ft. single-family home. It is on a corner lot with a very steep site which slopes from the north to the south. Several large, mature trees are also existing on the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,084 sq.ft. addition to the existing home on two levels which will make use of the sloping elevation of the site. The request is to accommodate the existing structure with a 1'9" front setback variance on the north and to allow a 20' setback, which is a 5' variance along the east boundary of the lot. Both of those north and east boundaries are fronts because of the configuration of this lot located at the corner of Fritz and Fritz. With regard to findings, special conditions which are peculiar to the subject property and project include the existing structure, which is non -conforming and predates current zoning regulations, the corner lot condition of the property, which imposes large setbacks for the two fronts adjacent to streets and the sloping topography of the site. Literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not allow the proposed addition and would create a very difficult situation for further developing the property. The slope make the relation of entrances, driveways and access to each level of the structure with regard to the grade of the site. That is pretty critical as to how various areas of the structure are accessed and how the applicant is proposing to utilize the slope to provide different living areas. Those are probably the most critical findings. In addition to that, with regard to harmony and the general purpose, the proposed front setback variance on the north is a minimum variance necessary to accommodate the existing structure, which as I mentioned, predates current zoning regulations. The proposed front setback variance on the east is the minimum variance necessary to allow the proposed addition. The existing home with the proposed addition is in harmony with the surrounding properties and is consistent with the purpose and intent of current zoning regulations. Surrounding properties are typically much larger than this particular single-family home. There is a newer subdivision that is developed to the east of this property. The applicant did provide some photographs that are in your packet that kind of demonstrate the existing condition of the structure on page 3.10 shows the site and some of the trees and the corner condition and then on the opposite page there is an example of surrounding properties so that you can kind of see the context of where this Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 10 structure is and what the surrounding single-family homes look like. It is also probably appropriate to take a look at that close up view map on page 3.12 and you can see on that that lot size is in this case actually pretty adequate. This is not an extremely small sized lot although there are other lots in the general area that are larger. The house that is on this lot is very small and especially compared to other surrounding structures. With that, there is also a written description in the packet. Staff is recommending in favor of the requested variances with one condition which states that the variances shall apply only to the existing structure and the proposed addition. Future additions or alterations shall comply with setback requirements for the zoning district and also the caveat that it would not preclude future variance requests if findings can be made by the Board of Adjustment. I do have signed conditions of approval by this applicant on file. Green: Ok, thank you. Is the applicant here? Callaway: My name is Dwight Callaway, I'm the applicant and the owner. I will just answer any questions you have. Green: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Callaway? Nickle: It looks like it will be a big improvement to the neighborhood and it is very nicely done. Kohler: I went over there and looked at this and I think it is great what you're doing with the exception of impacting some of the mature trees it doesn't hurt the neighborhood. My only question is why is being on a corner lot a special condition? There are other corner lots in the district and why just by the fact that it is a corner lot should consideration be given for things like setbacks? I know there is a sloping situation. Warrick: That is just it. I don't believe that being on a corner lot should be the sole consideration for a variance because corner lots are platted everyday and they are buildable lots. That is why there are other mitigating circumstances. Kohler: Why is it part of the criteria of it if there are other corner lots? Warrick: I just felt that it was appropriate to define the lot and to provide some sort of context of where this project was sited. Nickle: I think the key thing in my mind at least, is the fact that we are dealing with an existing structure here that predates the regulations. In order to expand the house to go back doesn't make a lot of sense straight back and to me that is part of the special conditions. Yes it is on a corner lot, etc. but to me it is the fact that it predates the situation and to make a decent looking project expansion that kind of blends in with the concept. The chances of the basic reasoning behind corner lot Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 11 setbacks is for potential road expansion in the future and I don't see that happening here on this corner. It has been there a long time. Kohler: I think there are some reasons to be favorable on this it is just that the fact that it is a corner lot to me wasn't one of them as far as why we should approve an exception to the zoning ordinance. When you buy corner lots with them come known restrictions. That was just a little bit of a question I had. Green: To me the added restriction that a corner lot provides is that you essentially have two front setbacks instead of only an 8' side setback which reduces the area on a corner lot that is buildable. There are other advantages for building on a corner lot too. Nickle: An 8' setback on the rear of the lot that slopes like this doesn't do you a heck of a lot of good because nobody is going to build a structure that takes advantage of the relief given by the second side setback being the rear. To me that is again, it speaks to the slope of the lot, which is the major consideration. Green: Becker: Point well taken. Are there any other questions or comments? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to have a comment on this issue? Denny Becker, just to reiterate what you said Mike, given the fact that this is an older subdivision a lot of time the grid iron concept was laid out to sell lots. There was no consideration given to the comer lot which requires two front setbacks so from a building standpoint you are reduced on your buildable area. That is why I would support the comment that says that is a condition different from anywhere else. I haven't seen the subdivision to see if they have enlarged the corner lots but I've seen plenty of subdivisions and they don't enlarge the corner lots and therefore, there is less buildable area. Olszewski: They used to do that, do they still do that where they don't bother to make the corner lots a little bigger? What you are saying is that basically they went through and just kind of gridded them off, do people still do that? Becker: If you get small lot divisions it makes a big difference so hopefully the developer understands what is going on and the buildable portion is enough. Kohler: That isn't unique to this site. Elsewhere in the district there are similar conditions. I am sure across the street in all four corners. Becker: In the historical district it is all over the place. Kohler: Right, so those lots aren't any bigger so that doesn't make this unique. Becker: No, but it makes it special. Corner lots are special conditions. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 12 Green: Are there any further comments or questions or issues or motions? MOTION: Nickle: 1 move that we approve the request with staff comments and requirements. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance request along with staff's recommendations. Is there any further comments from the Board or the audience? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-24.00 was approved by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Kohler voting no. Thomas: The motion carries four to one. Green: Thank you. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 13 VAR 03-25.00: Variance (Massey, pp 363) was submitted by Brett Watts of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mitchell Massey for property located at Wildwood Drive, Lot 6, Pine Valley Subdivision Phase V. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 1.90 acres. The requirement is for a 90' lot width. The request is for a 65'62" lot width (a 24'38" variance). Green: The next item on our agenda is a variance request VAR 03-25.00 by Massey. I understand that there is a need to table this in order to allow for additional information from the Planning Commission. Warrick: Staff is recommending that this item be tabled. We went ahead and kept it on your agenda since it has been published and since it was apart of a project that is in the works. The site is part of the Pine Valley Phase V subdivision and the applicant is proposing a four plex. It is on a 1.9 acre site and therefore, requires Large Scale Development approval. The Planning Commission heard this project at their July 28th meeting and at that time tabled it for additional information and until the Large Scale is heard by the Planning Commission and any kinks worked out that may come up at that level staff doesn't feel it is appropriate to take the Variance through the Board of Adjustment process. We will bring it to you as soon as it is ready. It is just not quite ready yet. Olszewski: Dawn, is this correct that you are recommending that we table it until September 2"d that is not the right date is it? Warrick: It is a Tuesday, the day after Labor Day. Monday is the Labor Day holiday. That is the one meeting each year that we shift for Board of Adjustment because of the holiday. We will meet on Tuesday instead. Olszewski: I thought maybe we would meet the following week. Warrick: I scheduled it for the 211d. That is our recommendation is to table this to your September meeting. Green: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this before we entertain a motion to table because there won't be any discussion. MOTION: Olszewski: I motion that we table it. Nickle: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to table, shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table VAR 03-25.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 14 Green: That item is tabled until at least the next meeting. Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 15 VAR 03-26.00: Variance (Pierce, pp 405) was submitted by Collier Pierce for property located at 1385 N. Oakland Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 0.3357 acres. The required lot width is 90'. The request is for 75' lot width (a 15' variance). Green: The last item on our regular Board of Adjustment agenda is VAR 03-26.00 submitted by Collier Pierce for property on Oakland Avenue. This is a request for a reduction in lot width requirements for a 15' variance. Warrick: The subject property is located at 1385 Oakland Avenue. The site is relatively flat. It is similar in size to surrounding lots. Many lots in this area have been combined to create larger development tracts for apaitments. This is in the multi -family zoning district. This lot, however, is a stand alone lot without commonly owned property adjacent to it. The site contains a total area of 15,000 sq.ft. It meets all size requirements for a lot containing more than three dwelling units within the RMF -24 zoning district with the exception of the lot width. Surrounding properties contain primarily multi -family residences. They are also located within this multi- family residential zoning district. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing structure and to construct an apartment development containing eight two bedroom units with 16 parking spaces. Staff did require that the applicant provide a site plan that demonstrates that this development could be constructed on the site in compliance with all development regulations prior to submitting a request for this lot width variance. What the request consists of is a variance of 15' to allow the development of more than three dwelling units on the subject property. The property does have 75' of existing lot width. For three units the requirement is 90'. The maximum density with its existing 75' lot width is a duplex. With regard to special conditions and findings, the subject property is owned as an individual lot without adjacent property under common ownership. The development of this property with a duplex would not be consistent with the density of other developments in the area which is zoned for Multi -family residential uses. The lot was created prior to adoption of current zoning regulations. While the lot can be developed with 75' of lot width it is, as I mentioned, not consistent with adjacent developments and all other lot requirements with regard to setbacks and lot area can be satisfied for the proposed eight unit development. Therefore, I felt that it would be consistent with a few conditions to recommend in favor of this lot width variance. The conditions stated on page one of your report are that the proposed development shall comply with all development regulations, including but not limited to, tree preservation, grading, drainage, storm water detention, parking, landscaping, sidewalks and impact fees. 2) No more than eight dwelling units shall be constructed on the site. 3) Adequate facilities for solid waste disposal which meet the requirements of the Solid Waste and Recycling Division shall be provided. With those conditions staff is recommending in favor of the request and the applicant has signed conditions of approval and those are on file. Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us? Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 16 Pierce: My name is Collier Pierce, I am with Pierce Properties and I am in the student rental business mostly and am trying to develop this property and trying to get the variance. Green: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Pierce? Nickle: I don't see a sidewalk but I assume you plan on having a sidewalk. Pierce: Yes Sir. Nickle: Probably where you've got these trees drawn. Pierce: No Sir, I've learned my lesson. Warrick: The trees will be required too. We will work with Mr. Pierce to make it al fit. There will be a requirement for trees along the front property line as well as a row of shrubs to mitigate the impact of the parking lot adjacent to the street right of way. Becker: I would just chime in with evne with the 75' width the greenspace side area is 8 '/2' and the requirement is only 5' and we have provided more parking than necessary and still have planted trees much more frequent than the code requires. The point that this is zoned RMF -24, you really can't develop it with a 24 unit multiple family unit so what is happening there, the attempt is to say let's develop this in a like manner with the other properties in the area. Green: The adjacent developments next to it are much more dense I guess? Becker: There are lots of rental properties up and down that street. I have got some right at the end of that street. There are some more being built at the other end. Kohler: Where is the addiitonal parking you are talking about in excess of what is required? Pierce: Actually, this is really eight one bedroom units and there are 16 parking places. It is miscalled as two bedrooms. Warrick: The requirement is one per bedroom. Olszewski: Isn't the side setback supposed to be 8'? Warrick: For parking it is 5'. Olszewski: The building itself is going to be 8' and that is what is required. Nickle: They have got about twice as much parking as what's required by ordinance. Is that right? Board of Adjustment August 4, 2003 Page 17 Pierce: We've got plenty of room for extra greenspace. If you look at any of my stuff I put trees everywhere I can get them. Kohler: Just out of curiosity, why are you putting the additional parking if it is not required and not using more greenspace? Pierce: I put all the parking I can get in a complex because that is the biggest problem is parking up by the campus. Nickle: Married couples often have two cars. Pierce: Being guard control is pretty tough. Whitaker: I can tell you from personal experience in that neighborhood during my school days is it keeps the entire street from being parked over. That basically happens when you don't have any parking. Becker: That particular street doesn't allow for any on street parking so anybody visiting must leave the street and get on the property so that is a requirement for more parking than code requires. Green: It looks like a good solution. Are there any other comments or questions? Does anyone in the audience want to address us on this item? MOTION: Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the Variance as requested with staff recommendations. Nickle: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance request along with staff's recommendations. Is there any other discussion from the Board or the audience? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-26.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Green: Thank you. If there is no other business for the Board of Adjustment we will adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting.